EEOC Rules Against Transgender Army Worker's Bathroom Request

Decision cites Trump-era executive order, sparking criticism from civil rights groups

Published on Feb. 27, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled against a transgender civilian IT specialist who worked for the U.S. Army at Fort Riley, Kansas, denying her request to use bathrooms and locker rooms aligned with her gender identity. The EEOC cited a Trump-era executive order that only recognizes two immutable sexes, male and female, in its decision, which was criticized by the agency's sole Democratic commissioner and several civil rights advocacy groups.

Why it matters

The case highlights the ongoing legal and political battles over transgender rights in the workplace, with the EEOC under the Trump administration taking a stance that departs from previous rulings protecting transgender employees from discrimination. The decision could embolden other federal agencies to restrict access to bathrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex rather than gender identity.

The details

The EEOC ruled 2-1 against the Army employee, who was not identified, after she filed a complaint when her request to use women's bathrooms and locker rooms was denied. The agency argued that allowing 'trans-identifying' employees into bathrooms of their gender identity would be tantamount to doing away with single-sex facilities. The EEOC cited Trump's executive order and dictionary definitions in insisting the employee's sex is male 'from the moment of his conception'.

  • In the summer of 2025, the employee informed her managers that she identified as a woman and requested to use bathrooms and locker rooms aligned with her gender identity.
  • The employee's request was declined, and she filed a complaint with the Army, which was dismissed.
  • On February 27, 2026, the EEOC ruled against the employee in a 2-1 decision.

The players

Andrea Lucas

Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who has aggressively moved to implement Trump-era policies on gender identity issues.

Kalpana Kotagal

The sole Democratic commissioner on the EEOC, who dissented in the decision against the transgender Army employee.

Mark Takano

Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, who condemned the EEOC decision as undermining the rights of minority workers.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Today's opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of 'sex' as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally. Biology is not bigotry.”

— Andrea Lucas, Chair, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

“I strongly disagree with the decision's substance and tone. The decision rests on the false premise that transgender workers are not worthy of the agency's protection from discrimination and harassment and that protecting them threatens the rights of other workers. Worse, it suggests that transgender people do not exist.”

— Kalpana Kotagal, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (LinkedIn)

“Andrea Lucas has spent her time leading EEOC undermining enforcement of minority workers' rights — she's exactly who the Commission was designed to fight back against.”

— Mark Takano, Chair, Congressional Equality Caucus

What’s next

The Army employee can file a request with the EEOC for reconsideration within 30 days, or she can file a new case in federal district court within 90 days.

The takeaway

This decision reflects the ongoing legal and political battles over transgender rights in the workplace, with the EEOC under the Trump administration taking a stance that departs from previous rulings protecting transgender employees. The case highlights the need for clear federal guidance and legislation to ensure equal treatment and non-discrimination for all workers, regardless of gender identity.